Could Adam and Eve talk to Animals like we can talk to each other?

[DamianWarS]

WORM

Zachal can be "worm, serpent, or to be afraid". Deuteronomy 34:24 uses this word.

Your reference would be used abstractly (I'm assuming because there is no Deuteronomy 34:24) as an abstract it's going to take various contextual forms. I'm looking at Gen 3:1 which is a concrete noun. Gen 3:1 is not worm or shiny brass object, it's serpent.

 

[Kaon]

Your reference would be used abstractly (I'm assuming because there is no Deuteronomy 34:24) as an abstract it's going to take various contextual forms. I'm looking at Gen 3:1 which is a concrete noun. Gen 3:1 is not worm or shiny brass object, it's serpent.

Deuteronomy 32:24 - it is a literal "snake" used in a figurative form.

In Genesis 3:1, "serpent" is nachash, which means "to hiss", or to whisper magical incantations. The "Serpent" was an enchanter, and if you read Enoch, you will see why it was an enchanter, and why the actual animal has nothing to do with the "fall".

Since most people don't believe in magic, demons gods or anything beyond their own eyes, the meaning has come to be a simple snake talking and conspiring. That, of course, takes about 80% of the reality away by marginalizing the entity, while creating confusion with the logic of a snake "as we know it" speaking and conspiring.

 

[BobRyan]

Dkh587 said: ↑
God told them to work 6 days because he worked 6 days. How could that not be literal? What would indicate that him saying that is not literal?

why would they have any reason to think it meant anything other than God created everything in 6 literal days, when he told them that’s why they are to work 6 days and rest?

And it is also found that way in "legal code" not parable ... see Ex 20:11

Do you believe God stops and takes a nap? It being non-literal doesn't eliminate the truths and values in the text.

"Surely hath God said ...?"

legal code that we could wrench to "not be literal"

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy"... just not really
"the 7th day is the Sabbath of the Lord" Ex 20:10...just not really
"for in six days the Lord MADE..." .. just not really

Does not work as legal code to give a not-really command and base that law on a not-really historic non-fact.

I've heard your legal code argument, you've told it to me already a few times.

Nice to hear.

All I ask is "attention to Bible details" instead of glossing over the ones that don't fit preference.

 

[Kaon]

The "physical" serpent is a zachal, which is better known as a WORM (context: crawling/crawler).

The "entity" that possessed the serpent is a nachash, or a whispering (divine) enchanter/enchantress.


Since the serpents are part of a class of entities that masquerade as archons and gods, their entire line is considered "nachash", even though they are the PHYSICAL root of "zachal".

 

[Dkh587]

The bible shows it values it and the details as is but this doesn't demand it's literal. Biblical use for the word in practice describes what we would call a snake. I'm not quite sure what your suggesting the difference is aside from pre-fall characteristics but the bible likely can't support it.

The word is serpent and it is serpent not snake because it's venomous. Different words are used to describe a serpent, some focus on its bite, but this word focuses on the hiss. I agree there is a relationship with an object that shines but even that word is not used for angels it's used for polished brass. In context this word is a serpent not a shiny brass.

You would have more ground to stand on if you could provide some scriptures, but you can’t really build a case if you don’t have any scriptures that can substantiate your claims.

Saying “it doesn’t demand it being literal” is not really saying much, when multiple verses indicate it being literal.

The creation story is referenced as literal throughout the entire bible...if that isn’t demanding that it be literal, what is?

 

[Dkh587]

None of this demands a literal account. Because it is used as a reference to build the Sabbath or 7 day week means it is important but it doesn't mean it's literal. Non-literal accounts also don't means lies. The creation account is divine truth, whether it's literal or not has no bearing on the truth. The account is full of foreshadowing that I find far more interesting and valuable than this desperate grasp of it being literal.

You speak of divine truth, but if you’re rejecting the continuing theme of a literal 6 day creation, you are rejecting divine truth.

 

[ewq1938]

The word is serpent and it is serpent not snake because it's venomous.

Snake and serpent have the same meaning and it's not based upon being venomous or not.

H5175
נָחָשׁ
nâchâsh
naw-khawsh'
From H5172; a snake (from its hiss): - serpent.
Total KJV occurrences: 31

H5175
נחשׁ
nâchâsh
BDB Definition:
1) serpent, snake
1a) serpent
1b) image (of serpent)
1c) fleeing serpent (mythological)
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H5172
Same Word by TWOT Number: 1347a

 

[visionary]

Only Doctor Dolittle could take with the animals!

and with that thought, the possibilities are wide open.

 

[DamianWarS]

You speak of divine truth, but if you’re rejecting the continuing theme of a literal 6 day creation, you are rejecting divine truth.

You have yet to say why that is so. Can a non-literal account be truth even divine truth? If so then there is the space where these account can operate in. If not then if you think God is powerful enough to create the world in 6 days then why can't be be powerful enough to express divine truth through non-literal accounts?

In practice the account should be interpreted as a non-literal account is (or at least its the most responsible way). Non-literal accounts are details in a vacuum where nothing outside the vacuum exists and contradictions don't matter. All you can trust is the details given and nothing else and any detail not given is irrelevant. Stuff like the details unsupported about the serpent, filling in the gaps in between each day of creation or trying to reconcile contradictions. In non-literal accounts non of this matters and the only information that matters is what's given.

Regardless of how you accept it as literal this is how it should be interpreted. We should not look at what the text doesn't say, we should only be focused on what the texts says.

 

[DamianWarS]

All I ask is "attention to Bible details" instead of glossing over the ones that don't fit preference

This is no glossing over. I would argue I value the details of the account more than most literalist do. Every part of these accounts are immensely important but the argument that they only have value or truth when they are literal is just silly.

 

[BobRyan]

Dkh587 said: ↑
God told them to work 6 days because he worked 6 days. How could that not be literal? What would indicate that him saying that is not literal?

why would they have any reason to think it meant anything other than God created everything in 6 literal days, when he told them that’s why they are to work 6 days and rest?

And it is also found that way in "legal code" not parable ... see Ex 20:11

Do you believe God stops and takes a nap? It being non-literal doesn't eliminate the truths and values in the text.

"Surely hath God said ...?"

legal code that we could wrench to "not be literal"

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy"... just not really
"the 7th day is the Sabbath of the Lord" Ex 20:10...just not really
"for in six days the Lord MADE..." .. just not really

Does not work as legal code to give a not-really command and base that law on a not-really historic non-fact.

obviously.

I've heard your legal code argument, you've told it to me already a few times.

Nice to hear.

All I ask is "attention to Bible details" instead of glossing over the ones that don't fit preference.

Because there is nothing like "the obvious" to pay attention to.

This is no glossing over.

We can all praise God for that!

I would argue I value the details of the account

Here again we can all be thankful for taking the right direction there.

When "obvious" is really that "obvious" then it is amazing just how far and wide those "obvious" details can be seen.

for example

==================================
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:


‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

 

[DamianWarS]

And it is also found that way in "legal code" not parable ... see Ex 20:11




"Surely hath God said ...?"

legal code that we could wrench to "not be literal"

"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy"... just not really
"the 7th day is the Sabbath of the Lord" Ex 20:10...just not really
"for in six days the Lord MADE..." .. just not really

Does not work as legal code to give a not-really command and base that law on a not-really historic non-fact.

obviously.



Nice to hear.

All I ask is "attention to Bible details" instead of glossing over the ones that don't fit preference.

Because there is nothing like "the obvious" to pay attention to.



We can all praise God for that!



Here again we can all be thankful for taking the right direction there.

When "obvious" is really that "obvious" then it is amazing just how far and wide those "obvious" details can be seen.

for example

==================================
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:


‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

I'm not sure your point here. You start with a copy and paste from a previous response repeating your legal code argument then go into why alternative views are wrong.

The problem is I don't remember stating another view so who are you arguing with? I'm not replacing the creation account with another theory I just recognize it as a non-literal account. You may continue to talk about why x-theory is wrong but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying as I don't suggest any other competing theory.

"Legal code" as you call is legal as it operates and is ordained as law. I don't see why you see this as such a slam dunk argument. You can keep saying legal code but this in no way informs us the creation account is literal it just shows it is important and repeating it over and over doesn't change this.

I'm beginning to think this conversation is too abstract for your approach. I would love to be able to dialog here but it's just canned responses pasted in. If you can't respect me enough to engage the topic than we can't continue this conversation.

 

[Dkh587]

You have yet to say why that is so. Can a non-literal account be truth even divine truth? If so then there is the space where these account can operate in. If not then if you think God is powerful enough to create the world in 6 days then why can't be be powerful enough to express divine truth through non-literal accounts?

In practice the account should be interpreted as a non-literal account is (or at least its the most responsible way). Non-literal accounts are details in a vacuum where nothing outside the vacuum exists and contradictions don't matter. All you can trust is the details given and nothing else and any detail not given is irrelevant. Stuff like the details unsupported about the serpent, filling in the gaps in between each day of creation or trying to reconcile contradictions. In non-literal accounts non of this matters and the only information that matters is what's given.

Regardless of how you accept it as literal this is how it should be interpreted. We should not look at what the text doesn't say, we should only be focused on what the texts says.

A non-literal account could possibly be truth, or divine truth, but as we see from several examples throughout scripture, it’s literal. You’re speaking theoretically, and against what is revealed as a literal 6 day creation, reiterated throughout the entire bible.

as I said before, you have no valid reasons based on scripture that it’s Non-literal, just personal opinions. If we are going to accept “divine truth”, it would behoove us to accept the full truth of what it’s revealing. You have yet to provide 1 single scripture why it’s not literal.

If we don’t accept the entirety of the truth revealed, such as a literal 6 day creation, are we truly accepting it?

It being literal obviously matters, otherwise there would not have been details regarding the creation. we have details, a timeline, and commandments based on a timeline.


It’s YOU that doesn’t view it as important, not the writers in the Scriptures, not God, not the Messiah, Prophets or the Apostles.

other than your personal views/reasoning, do you have any scriptural evidence for why we shouldn’t understand the creation to be literal?

 

[visionary]

Here is the danger of 'not literal'... everything ceases to be taken literally. Then everything is called into question on its existence. When the idea is brought to conclusion, if the 'not literal' branch is chosen, faith will have no substance.

 

[coffee4u]

I'm not replacing the creation account with another theory I just recognize it as a non-literal account.

You agree that we are here literally right? Silly question is silly, but if we are here literally, and the creation account of 6 days is not literal than how did the world come to be here? How did we, the plants and animals come to be here? Since if 6-day creation wasn't literal, what was the literal means of us coming into existence? You must be replacing it with something.

 

[DamianWarS]

You agree that we are here literally right? Silly question is silly, but if we are here literally, and the creation account of 6 days is not literal than how did the world come to be here? How did we, the plants and animals come to be here? Since if 6-day creation wasn't literal, what was the literal means of us coming into existence? You must be replacing it with something.

It's prehistory and Moses penned it 2500 years after the event to a people predisposed to pagan practices. I don't see why viewing the creation account his way is so controversial as it bears the characteristics of a non-literal account in every way. The creation account answers a lot of things, dominatly "who did it" but I don't see it doing so as a literal account. I'm agnostic to what actually happened except that God did it (and this is inclusive of a 6 day creation). Funny thing is my confidence of what happened is not dependant upon my existence.

 

[DamianWarS]

Here is the danger of 'not literal'... everything ceases to be taken literally. Then everything is called into question on its existence. When the idea is brought to conclusion, if the 'not literal' branch is chosen, faith will have no substance.

That's a strawman. No one is claiming the entire bible shouldn't be taken literal, nor is it just randomly selected. Pre-Abrahamic accounts are pre-history and their degree of "literalness" has no bearing on their value and role in scripture.

 

[DamianWarS]

It’s YOU that doesn’t view it as important, not the writers in the Scriptures, not God, not the Messiah, Prophets or the Apostles.

other than your personal views/reasoning, do you have any scriptural evidence for why we shouldn’t understand the creation to be literal?

I see the creation account as a fundamental part of scripture and core to our faith, please do not suggest I do not value it or regard it as unimportant. Let's respect and assume the highest from each other.

I also list many biblical evidences that support it as a non-literal account in post #129. What you seem to be doing is confusing scriptural value of the accounts as proof that it is literal but because it is prehistory this is not implicit and there is no such evidences these accounts demand to be literal. You admit yourself divine truth may occupy the space of a non-literal account so if so, entire systems can be built upon these accounts and their degree of being literal is far out weighted by their degree of being truth.

Because they are prehistory, we have no liberties to look beyond the words we have and must seal the accounts as is without any method to reponsibly fill in the blanks, understand the surrounding environments, or reconcile inconsistencies which is unique in all of scripture. In practise they should be read and interpreted just as non-literal accounts are, even if you view them as literal.

 

[coffee4u]

It's prehistory and Moses penned it 2500 years after the event to a people predisposed to pagan practices. I don't see why viewing the creation account his way is so controversial as it bears the characteristics of a non-literal account in every way. The creation account answers a lot of things, dominatly "who did it" but I don't see it doing so as a literal account. I'm agnostic to what actually happened except that God did it (and this is inclusive of a 6 day creation). Funny thing is my confidence of what happened is not dependant upon my existence.

'God did it'
Yes, how? What is your model?

Your profile says Christian you should change it because non-Christians are not allowed to post here.

 

[DamianWarS]

'God did it'
Yes, how? What is your model?

Your profile says Christian you should change it because non-Christians are not allowed to post here.

Please don't suggest that I'm not a Christian. Why are you demanding I have an answer and lack of an answer means I'm not a Christian?